Paul Kelly paul-grass at stjohnspoint.co.uk
Tue Oct 31 07:14:43 EST 2006

Hello Frank and everyone

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> The OSGeo guidelines are very non-specific.  The guidelines talk about
> ensuring that the project has a mechanism in place to maintain control
> over the code base.  One required role of the PSC is to enforce proper
> legal controls over the code base.  Normally this is achieved by the
> PSC establishing code commiter guidelines, selecting new commiters,
> and acting when violations are found.

This sounds good. GRASS already has code committal guidelines and I think 
they just need to be re-inforced. Also requiring developers to post an 
explanation to the mailing list of all non-obvious changes they make might 
be a good idea. Would need to think that through clearly though. I'm just 
trying to think of ways the existence of the PSC as some kind of unifying 
authority could be used to enhance rather than replace the current 

> More generally the PSC is expected to be able to speak on behalf of the
> project.
> If the GRASS PSC established code commiter guidelines, decided on new
> commiters and followed up on possible legal problems, that would likely
> meet the minimum requirements.

Well I definitely think that is feasible.

> In practice though, the Incubation committee votes for graduation based
> on whether they feel the project is being run in an orderly fashion and
> has a healthy functioning community.  So the guidelines are at most
> guidelines.  At the end of the day what matters is the judgement call
> by the incubation committee members.
> I'd add, I think it would be acceptable for the PSC to say that commiters
> can continue to develop as they do now, using the -dev mailing list for
> discussion, and making changes as seen fit.  In this situation the PSC
> would basically be a mechanism for arbitration if the informal mechanism
> fails on particular issues, or with regard to specific people.
> What I don't think you need are a lot of complicated rules.

Agreed. I hope people can see where I'm coming from that if everything 
continues to work as it does, there really should be very rarely a need to 
vote on anything. Voting by its nature is divisive and I don't like it. I 
think discussion until a consensus is reached is the best way forward, and 
having to vote on anything will be a serious last resort, a recognition 
that we have failed to agree. In that light I don't think devising 
intricate voting procedures is something we should be spending a lot of 
time on at the minute.

A GRASS-PSC mailing list is a basic requirement though, I think. We could 
copy this thread into the archive once it is set up.


More information about the grass-psc mailing list